Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Editorial
Ten Simple Rules for Editing WikipediaDarren W. Logan1, Massimo Sandal2, Paul P. Gardner1, Magnus Manske1, Alex Bateman1*
1 Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Wikipedia is the world’s most successful
online encyclopedia, now containing over
3.3 million English language articles. It is
probably the largest collection of knowl-
edge ever assembled, and is certainly the
most widely accessible. Wikipedia can be
edited by anyone with Internet access that
chooses to, but does it provide reliable
information? A 2005 study by Nature found
that a selection of Wikipedia articles on
scientific subjects were comparable to a
professionally edited encyclopedia [1],
suggesting a community of volunteers
can generate and sustain surprisingly
accurate content.
For better or worse, people are guided
to Wikipedia when searching the Web for
biomedical information [2]. So there is an
increasing need for the scientific commu-
nity to engage with Wikipedia to ensure
that the information it contains is accurate
and current. For scientists, contributing to
Wikipedia is an excellent way of fulfilling
public engagement responsibilities and
sharing expertise. For example, some
Wikipedian scientists have successfully
integrated biological data with Wikipedia
to promote community annotation [3,4].
This, in turn, encourages wider access to
the linked data via Wikipedia. Others have
used the wiki model to develop their own
specialist, collaborative databases [5–8].
Taking your first steps into Wikipedia can
be daunting, but here we provide some
tips that should make the editing process
go smoothly.
Rule 1: Register an Account
Although any visitor can edit Wikipe-
dia, creating a user account offers a
number of benefits. Firstly, it offers you
privacy and security. Though counterin-
tuitive, editors registered under a pseu-
donymous username actually have greater
anonymity than those who edit ‘‘anony-
mously’’. A few of us have chosen to
associate our accounts with our real
identities. Should you choose to forgo
pseudonymity on Wikipedia, your entire
editing history will be open to indefinite
scrutiny by curious Web searchers, includ-
ing future colleagues, students, or employ-
ers. Do not forget this.
As in academic circles, a good reputa-
tion helps your wiki career. By logging in
you can build a record of good edits, and it
is easier to communicate and collaborate
with others if you have a fixed, reputable
identity. Finally, registering an account
provides access to enhanced editing fea-
tures, including a ‘‘watchlist’’ for monitor-
ing articles you have edited previously.
Rule 2: Learn the Five Pillars
There are some broad principles—
known as the ‘‘five pillars’’—all editors
are expected to adhere to when contrib-
uting to Wikipedia. Perhaps most impor-
tant for scientists is the appreciation that
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original
thought or research [9]. Accordingly, it is
not an appropriate venue to promote your
pet theory or share unpublished results. It
is also not a soapbox on which to expound
your personal theories or a battleground to
debate controversial issues. In this respect,
Wikipedia fundamentally differs from oth-
er types of new media, such as blogs, that
encourage editorializing.
Contributing to Wikipedia is something
to enjoy; a natural extension of your
enthusiasm for science. But differences of
opinion inevitably arise, particularly on
pages provided for discussion on how to
improve articles. Treat other editors as
collaborators and maintain a respectful and
civil manner, even in disagreement [10]. If
you begin to find a particular interaction
stressful, simply log off and come back
another time. Unlike most scientific enter-
prises, Wikipedia has no deadlines.
Rule 3: Be Bold, but NotReckless
The survival and growth of any wiki
requires participation. Wikipedia is un-
matched in size, but its continuing success
depends on the regular contributions of
tens of thousands of volunteers. Therefore,
Wikipedia urges all users to be bold: if you
spot an error, correct it. If you can
improve an article, please do so. It is
important, however, to distinguish bold-
ness from recklessness. Start off small.
Begin by making minor modifications to
existing articles before attempting a com-
plete rewrite of History of science.
Many new editors feel intimidated
about contributing to Wikipedia at first,
fearing they may a mistake. Such reticence
is understandable but unfounded. The
worst that can happen is your first edits
are deemed not to be an improvement and
they get reverted. If this does occur, treat it
as a positive learning experience and ask
the reverting editor for advice.
Rule 4: Know Your Audience
Wikipedia is not primarily aimed at
experts; therefore, the level of technical
detail in its articles must be balanced
against the ability of non-experts to
understand those details. When contribut-
ing scientific content, imagine you have
been tasked with writing a comprehensive
scientific review for a high school audi-
ence. It can be surprisingly challenging
explaining complex ideas in an accessible,
jargon-free manner. But it is worth the
perseverance. You will reap the benefits
when it comes to writing your next
manuscript or teaching an undergraduate
class.
Rule 5: Do Not InfringeCopyright
With certain conditions, almost all of
Wikipedia’s content is free for anyone to
reuse, adapt, and distribute. Consequently,
Citation: Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten Simple Rules for EditingWikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6(9): e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941
Published September 30, 2010
Copyright: � 2010 Logan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this article.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: [email protected]
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 1 September 2010 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e1000941
it does not accept non-free material under
copyright restriction. Some journals, in-
cluding those from the Public Library of
Science, publish material under an open-
access license that is compatible with use in
Wikipedia if properly attributed. Most do
not. Therefore, although it may be tempt-
ing, avoid copying text or figures from
your latest review article (or anyone else’s)
into Wikipedia. It will quickly be identified
as a copyright violation and flagged for
immediate deletion.
You can give Wikipedia permission to
use material you own, but this process is
non-reversible and can be time consum-
ing. It is often better to rewrite the text in
simpler language or redraw the figure to
make it more accessible. This will also
ensure it is more suitable for Wikipedia’s
non-expert readership (see Rule 4).
Rule 6: Cite, Cite, Cite
To maintain the highest standards
possible, Wikipedia has a strict inclusion
policy that demands verifiability [11]. This
is best established by attributing each
statement in Wikipedia to a reliable, pub-
lished source (but see Rules 7 and 8 on
excessive self-citing). Most scientists are in
the fortunate position of having access to a
wide body of literature, and experience in
using inline citations to support their
writing. Since unverified content may be
removed from Wikipedia at any time,
provide supporting citations for every
statement that might be challenged by
another editor at some point in the future.
Whenever possible, give preference to
secondary sources (such as reviews or
book chapters) that survey the relevant
primary research over research articles
themselves.
Wikipedia’s accessibility makes each of
its scientific articles an excellent entry
point for laypeople seeking specialist in-
formation. By also providing direct hyper-
links to reliable, freely accessible online
resources with your citations (biological
databases or open-access journals, for
example), other editors can quickly verify
your content and readers have immediate
access to authoritative sources that address
the subject in greater detail.
Rule 7: Avoid ShamelessSelf-Promotion
Many people are tempted to write or
edit Wikipedia articles about themselves.
Resist that urge. If you are sufficiently
notable to merit inclusion in an encyclo-
pedia, eventually someone else will write
an article about you. Remember that
unlike a personal Web page, your Wiki-
pedia biography is not yours to control. A
lovingly crafted hagiography extolling
your many virtues can rapidly accumulate
information you would rather not be pub-
licized. You may already have a Wikipedia
biography, but it contains factual inaccu-
racies that you wish to correct. How do
you do this without breaking the rules?
Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage you to
provide information about yourself on the
associated discussion page, but please
permit other editors to add it to the article
itself.
Think twice, also, before writing about
your mentors, colleagues, competitors, in-
ventions, or projects. Doing so places you
in a conflict of interest and inclines you
towards unintentional bias [12]. If you
have a personal or financial interest in the
subject of any article you choose to edit,
declare it on the associated discussion page
and heed the advice of other editors who
can offer a more objective perspective.
Rule 8: Share Your Expertise,but Don’t Argue from Authority
Writing about a subject about which
you have academic expertise is not a
conflict of interest [12]; indeed, this is
where we can contribute to Wikipedia
most effectively. Jimmy Wales, co-founder
of Wikipedia, told Nature that experts have
the ability to ‘‘write specifics in a nuanced
way’’, thereby significantly improving
article quality [1]. When writing in your
area of expertise, referencing material you
have published in peer-reviewed journals
is permitted if it is genuinely notable, but
use common sense (and revisit Rule 7). For
example, if you have an obscure, never-
been-cited article in the Journal of New
Zealand Dairy Research discussing the RNA
content of cow milk, then referencing this
in the introductory paragraph of the
Wikipedia articles on ‘‘RNA’’, ‘‘Milk’’,
‘‘Cow’’, and ‘‘Evolution of mammals’’ is
not a good idea.
Occasionally you may interact with
another editor who clearly does not share
your expertise on the subject of an article.
This can often prove frustrating for experts
and is the basis of much academic angst
on Wikipedia [1]. On such occasions,
remember that you are assessed only on
your contributions to Wikipedia, not who
you are, your qualifications, or what you
have achieved in your career. Your
specialist knowledge should enable you to
write in a neutral manner and produce
reliable, independent sources to support
each assertion you make. If you do not
provide verification, your contributions
will be rightly challenged irrespective of
how many degrees you hold.
Rule 9: Write Neutrally and withDue Weight
All articles in Wikipedia should be
impartial in tone and content [13]. When
writing, do state facts and facts about
notable opinions, but do not offer your
opinion as fact. Many newcomers to
Wikipedia gravitate to articles on contro-
versial issues about which people hold
strong opposing viewpoints. Avoid these
until familiar with Wikipedia’s policies (see
Rule 3), and instead focus on articles that
are much easier to remain dispassionate
about.
Many scientists who contribute to
Wikipedia fail to appreciate that a neutral
point of view is not the same as the
mainstream scientific point of view. When
writing about complex issues, try to cover
all significant viewpoints and afford each
with due weight, but not equal weight. For
example, an article on a scientific contro-
versy should describe both the scientific
consensus and significant fringe theories,
but not in the same depth or in a manner
suggesting these viewpoints are equally
held.
Rule 10: Ask for Help
Wikipedia can be a confusing place for
the inexperienced editor. Learning Wiki
markup—the syntax that instructs the
software how to render the page—may
appear daunting at first, though the recent
implementation of a new editing toolbar
has made this easier, and usability devel-
opment is ongoing. The intersecting
guidelines and policies (and the annoying
tendency of experienced editors to use an
alphabet soup of acronyms to reference
them) can also be tricky to comprehend.
Thankfully, the Wikipedia community
puts great stock in welcoming new edi-
tors. Guidance is available through a
number of avenues, including help desks,
a specific IRC channel, and an Adopt-a-
User mentorship program. You can even
summon help using a special template—
{{helpme}}—and, as if by magic, a
friendly Wikipedian will appear to offer
one-on-one assistance.
Acknowledgments
We thank Philip Bourne for insightful com-
ments and gratefully acknowledge the contribu-
tions of the many Wikipedians who collectively
developed the policies and guidelines that
inspired these rules.
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 2 September 2010 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e1000941
References
1. Giles J (2005) Internet encyclopaedias go head tohead. Nature 438: 900–901.
2. Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009) Seeking healthinformation online: does Wikipedia matter? J Am
Med Inform Assoc 16: 471–479.3. Daub J, Gardner PP, Tate J, Ramskold D,
Manske M, et al. (2008) The RNA WikiProject:
community annotation of RNA families. RNA 14:2462–2464.
4. Huss JW, 3rd, Orozco C, Goodale J, Wu C,Batalov S, et al. (2008) A gene wiki for community
annotation of gene function. PLoS Biol 6: e175.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175.5. Hoffmann R (2008) A wiki for the life sciences
where authorship matters. Nat Genet 40:1047–1051.
6. Mons B, Ashburner M, Chichester C, van
Mulligen E, Weeber M, et al. (2008) Calling on
a million minds for community annotation inWikiProteins. Genome Biol 9: R89.
7. Pico AR, Kelder T, van Iersel MP, Hanspers K,Conklin BR, et al. (2008) WikiPathways: pathway
editing for the people. PLoS Biol 6: e184.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060184.
8. Hodis E, Prilusky J, Martz E, Silman I, Moult J,
et al. (2008) Proteopedia - a scientific ‘wiki’bridging the rift between three-dimensional
structure and function of biomacromolecules.Genome Biol 9: R121.
9. Wikipedia contributors (2010) No original re-
search. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Avail-able: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
><?show=to]No_original_research. Accessed 26July 2010.
10. Wikipedia contributors (2010) Civility. Wikipedia,
the Free Encyclopedia. Available: http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Accessed
26 July 2010.
11. Wikipedia contributors (2010) Verifiability. Wiki-
pedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Available: http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Accessed 26 July 2010.
12. Wikipedia contributors (2010) Conflict of interest.
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict
_of_interest. Accessed 26 July 2010.
13. Wikipedia contributors (2010) Neutral point of
view. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Avail-
able: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Neutral_point_of_view. Accessed 26 July 2010.
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 3 September 2010 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e1000941
